logo
Do WelcomeFest Democrats even know what's popular?

Do WelcomeFest Democrats even know what's popular?

Yahoo10-06-2025
Centrist activists at the heart of a new push to control the direction of the Democratic party insist that they want Democrats to adopt positions that track with public opinion. But, as it stands, there is sparse evidence that their preferred platform is actually popular, according to researchers, with the advocates for a more centrist party also failing to recognize the impact that leaders can have on public opinion.
Last week, centrist Democrats gathered in Washington, D.C. for an event billed as the largest public gathering of centrists in the Democratic Party, 'WelcomeFest.' The event served as a celebration of Democrats (and former Democrats) like former Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.V., who represented the party's center-right flank.
The co-founder of the centrist billionaire funded Welcome PAC, Liam Kerr, even walked out on stage wearing a Joe Manchin West Virginia University Mountaineers football jersey, before delivering an opening statement in front of slides which surmised the group's vision for the party going forward as 'dogs,' referencing Blue Dogs; 'data'; and 'Slotkin,' referring to the freshman senator from Michigan, Elissa Slotkin, who Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has taken a shine to.
The closest thing to a thesis statement for the event, however, came from Lauren Harper Pope, a founder of the Welcome Party, the political organization behind the event, who described the group's mission as making sure 'Democrats are on the right side of public opinion.'
G. Elliott Morris, a public opinion researcher and the proprietor of the Substack blog, 'Strength in Numbers,' said in an interview with Salon that 'it's very obvious, if you're a student of public opinion, that public opinion is very malleable and also very subject to the questions you're asking and the way you're measuring the thing you're trying to measure.' He suggested 'those two nuances are just not compatible with activism among these groups,' referring to those who attempt to position themselves on the "right side" of public opinion.
In practical terms, however, being on the right side of public opinion appears to mean adopting more conservative policies on issues where a more conservative position appears to be more popular, like on immigration or the participation of transgender people in sports. In economic terms, the group has pushed towards the 'abundance agenda' which focuses on rolling back regulations that proponents say limit things like the construction of new housing.
The problem, however, for the burgeoning centrist movement is that there's not a lot of evidence that the key tentpole of their centrist platform — rolling back regulations and saying no to advocacy groups in the pursuit of the abundance agenda — is popular.
Josh Barro, a journalist and the proprietor of the 'Very Serious' Substack blog, touched on this in an interview he did with Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., at last week's centrist event, where he asked Torres, 'Is abundance actually popular ... in a place like New York?'
Torres answered, saying, 'I feel like we need strong leadership, and look, we've seen the YIMBY movement gain momentum even in California and New York.' The YIMBY ('Yes in my backyard') movement refers to pro-development advocacy that stands in opposition to NIMBY ('Not in my backyard') positions that often limit development through restrictive zoning laws. This wasn't, however, the last time the issue came up at the event.
When asked a follow-up question by Salon, Torres responded in an email saying 'A government that builds more affordable housing, more clean energy, and more infrastructure is not only good government. It's good politics.'
Later, in a panel featuring Derek Thompson, a co-author of 'Abundance,' and Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-Mass., Marshall Kosloff, co-host of 'The Realignment' podcast, Kosloff confronted the panelists with polling from Demand Progress, a progressive polling firm, that tested whether the abundance message or an economic populist message resonated with respondents better.
When presented with descriptions of both the abundance agenda, which focused on peeling back regulations, and an economic populist agenda, which focused on dismantling corporate power, the poll found that Democrats and independents preferred the economic populist message while Republicans preferred the abundance message.
Auchincloss responded, saying that it was 'a bad-faith poll' and that the results are 'what happens when you test an economics textbook against a romance novel and tell people, 'What do you like to read better?''
In the survey, the abundance agenda was described as: 'The big problem is 'bottlenecks' that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges.' The populist agenda was described as: 'The big problem is that big corporations have way too much power over our economy and our government.'
The survey found that 32.6% of Democrats, 68.8% of Republicans and 40.6% of independents said that the abundance message would make them more likely to vote for a candidate. The populist message, on the other hand, led 71.5% of Democrats, 39.6% of Republicans and 55.4% of independents to say they were more likely to vote for a candidate delivering that message. The survey did not test for the partisan affiliation of the candidate delivering the message.
Economic messaging wasn't, however, the only place where centrists appeared to be adopting a minority opinion. When Torres was interrupted during his speech by anti-war protesters, organizers at the event started playing Carly Simon's 'You're So Vain,' and the Welcome Party's associated Substack called the protesters 'vain clowns.'
While the 'popularists' mocked pro-Palestinian sentiment, Democrats have increasingly sympathized with Palestinians, with a recent Gallup poll finding that 59% of Democrats now sympathize with Palestinians more, while just 21% sympathize with Israelis more. In the general population, more Americans, 46% sympathize more with Israelis, compared to 33% who sympathize more with Palestinians, though sympathies have been shifting away from Israelis and towards Palestinians in recent years. However, in terms of concrete policy like legal actions taken against Israel, this shift has been more dramatic.
Another survey from April, conducted by John Zogby Strategies, found that in terms of practical policy, 44% of respondents agreed with the International Criminal Court's findings that Israel's war on Gaza is tantamount to genocide, compared to 28% who disagreed with that statement.
They've also begun to carve out a minority position in regards to the labor movement, advocating for pushing against unions at a point when Americans' approval of labor unions is near an all-time high. A 2024 Gallup survey found that 70% of Americans approve of unions while just 23% disapprove.At one point during the event, Barro asked, 'Is there a way to have a pro-abundance Democratic Party agenda in New York without breaking the strong link that exists between the New York Democratic Party and the labor movement?' The thinking goes that giving out contracts to unionzied companies, or requiring developers to do so, can increase labor costs for projects and potentially discourage development.
Torres responded indirectly, saying: 'Everyone's voice should be heard, but no one's going to have veto power.' Barro has since gone on to advocate for 'fighting labor unions' in the name of abundance. Beyond staking out minority positions, the mission of staying on the 'right side of public opinion' also misses that the way that leaders can shape the way the public views on an issue.
Research conducted by Morris alongside Verasight, a survey research firm, found that priming respondents with information about the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a wrongfully deported Maryland resident, resulted in a reduction in support for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants.
The survey found that, without priming, 44% of respondents supported blanket deportations of undocumented immigrants while 38% did not. Among respondents given information about Abrego Garcia's case, however, just 39% supported blanket deportations, while 43% reported opposing the deportations.
Morris also tracked Trump's approval rating on the issue of immigration alongside how much attention the Abrego Garcia case was getting in the press. He found that Trump's approval rating on immigration decreased in correlation with an increase in the attention that was being paid to the case.
'It seems more sales tactics to me than a commitment to actually tracking and representing the average person,' Morris said of the centrist movement. 'They have their own set of beliefs that, for the past 15 months, have been supported by majorities in the particular ways that these polls have asked majorities those questions. But that's not necessarily going to be true in the future, given events, so they are now put in the situation where they have to assert that these things are popular,' Morris said. 'They just have a commitment to these values first and a commitment to the public second.'
Kerr, the co-founder of the Welcome Party's PAC, when asked by Salon what happens when public opinion shifts on an issue, and whether Democrats should adopt a new position to reflect that shift, called the conundrum a 'classic political theory question.'
'The Burkean response — a representative 'owes you not his industry only but his judgement, and he betrays you if he sacrifices it to your opinion' — has some merit. But also you have to get elected in the first place,' Kerr said in an email. 'Most prominent issues are not ones where the public opinion has been rapidly shifting beyond where candidates were standing firm. The story of the last decade is more about candidates zooming past where voter opinion was. And the answer to that problem is candidates with deep values and the confidence to authentically represent those values both to voters and in how they vote in Congress.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.
Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.

USA Today

time18 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.

Does America need a viable third political party? Republicans and Democrats alike sound off – and actually agreed on something – in our latest Opinion Forum. In June – which yes, feels like a lifetime ago – billionaire and former first buddy Elon Musk began floating the idea of an "America Party" on the social media platform he's colonized. Originally a response to President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Musk viewed as an "insane spending bill," this new third party would "actually represent the 80% in the middle" and give voters back their "freedom." It's an interesting idea – and not necessarily new. America, as we're reminded every general election, does have more than two political parties, but those splintered factions rarely result in anything of consequence. Instead, our politics are an endless ping-pong match between Republicans and Democrats – which many Americans increasingly view as two sides of the same coin. So is a true multiparty system the way forward? And is Musk, as divisive as he is, the one to lead it? Those were some of the questions we asked USA TODAY readers for our latest Forum. We heard people from each political party and found some surprising consensus. Read their responses below. A third party isn't enough. America needs an entirely new system. America doesn't just need a third party – it needs a full-spectrum awakening. The system we're living in isn't just outdated ‒ it's misaligned with the reality of who we are today. Tradition has its place, but clinging to it out of habit keeps us locked into patterns that no longer serve us. The problems we face now are wildly different from those of the past, so why are we still trying to solve them with yesterday's blueprints? We need more than another political faction; we need a radical reimagining of how representation works. For too long, our politics have been stuck in black-and-white thinking: left or right, red or blue, us versus them. The idea that one person – usually male, usually from a singular political perspective – can fully represent an entire nation is outdated. Lived experience matters. And no matter how well-intentioned he may be, a man cannot truly fight for women the way a woman can. The same goes in reverse. Each brings something vital to the table, and that's why America needs more than just a third party – it needs a shared leadership model. Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum Imagine a presidency not defined by solo power but co-led by two individuals with contrasting yet complementary identities ‒ say, a woman and a man from different ideological spaces. Together, they could challenge groupthink, broaden empathy and offer layered approaches to complex issues. Conflict wouldn't be avoided ‒ it'd be used as a strength to build deeper solutions. Our most marginalized voices wouldn't be tokens ‒ they'd have champions on both sides. Sure, this idea may cause some readers to flip their lids. But history has shown us that progress doesn't come wrapped in comfort. It comes when someone says 'What if?' and dares to sketch it out loud. As for Elon Musk? He didn't build with a brain ‒ he built with money. He footed bills and took credit. He couldn't hold a thought together or support his own child for being themselves. That's not genius. That's cowardice. Power without empathy is a threat, not a solution. We don't need leaders who smile for the cameras while people suffer. We need firewalls, not figureheads. If you can't fight for people without cash behind them, you don't get to represent any of us. The Republican Party is consumed by extremism and fear tactics. The Democratic Party is fractured and too often indecisive. Both chase headlines while families struggle, health care costs explode and trust erodes. Neither party centers everyday people, and that's the core failure. — Kayleisha Miller, Coal Township, Pennsylvania Our political parties have been lost to oligarchs. We need a shake-up. We need a viable third party to shake up the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are being held hostage by the extreme right and left of their parties. We need a party that is not beholden to American oligarchs. It needs to govern with common sense and realize that compromise is not a four-letter word. As a nation, we used to value these traits. Now it's a take-no-hostage era. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. Musk is one of the oligarchs of the United States. He is a businessman whose sole raison d'être is to make a profit. One cannot run a nation like one runs a company. Both parties are being held captive by the extreme right and left wings of their parties. The Democrats have lost their focus on the issues that mean the most to the people. They have forgotten who the working people are in this nation. They need to realize people don't want a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The Republicans have come under the spell of authoritarian governance. As much as they profess to care about the working people, they care more about the American oligarchs. — Paul Tonello, Sparks, Nevada If we had better people in power, two parties would be enough. But we don't. If there were representatives who would vote to represent the people who elected them on different issues, rather than always being in lockstep, a two-party system works very well. A multiparty system that requires different coalitions on different issues would work better than what is happening in Congress. I believe that fiscal responsibility, compassion for those in need, smaller government and stewardship of national assets would win the greatest coalition's vote. Musk's resources are important, but getting moderates from each party to be involved would be more important. Also, getting more people who are not currently involved in politics could make it very powerful. Neither party is doing anything to make the future better for our children and grandchildren. I wish we had good people instead of people who thrive on power and ego. — LaMar Stephenson, Spanish Fork, Utah It's a matter of when, not if, a third party will emerge in America The existing two-party system limits the people's choices. They coexist in a symbiotic relationship. Much like defense and plaintiff attorneys. They need each other to exist. Loyalty among the members is first to their respective party, not the Constitution. In my sphere of connections across all of America, I have yet to meet a person who does not believe a third party is a necessity. It is my belief that the time of a two-party system has passed. A new political system is a necessity. If we have a third option, more fiscally conservative and socially moderate, this country will be better served. When, not if, this happens, the legacy parties might wake up and realize they have lost touch with the American system. It is incumbent on the news media, which has also polarized, to begin an honest reporting of this movement. A third party should be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, protecting the future of America and not buying votes by borrowing from the future. The youth of America will wake up and align with a new model. Musk has the resources to overcome the start-up challenges of a viable third party. He has clearly shown his commitment to improving government and its misdirected leadership. But he is not the person to lead the party. We need a charismatic younger leader who comes from the heartland, has been in the actual world and served his country. Service in the military is important. It's too easy to place young Americans in harm's way when they have not also made that choice. Look at how few elected officials have served or have children in service. Service can take many forms that reflect their passion for serving the United States. The two parties exist to support each other. Loyalty by their members is to the party, not the country. Congress demands this loyalty. Leadership punishes those with loyalty to country above party. — Bob Jones, Dadeville, Alabama We need a political party that isn't beholden to the rich The present political parties are beholden to the rich. We need a party that also hears the people. A better party would focus on middle-class needs, education, helping college kids with their future, present and past college bills. It would focus on the environment and upholding and advancing the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and equality for all. We need a party that has a little nuance on issues and looks for ways to solve problems with compromise. Our young people need affordable housing. Medical care should not be tied to employment. And we need to restore the sense of community that we have lost in some places ‒ a sense that there is something greater than me. Musk is not the person to lead a third party. He has done too much damage by reelecting President Donald Trump and with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. I suppose his money could be useful. The Republican Party is firmly under the control of Trump. He is corrupt, cruel and embraces chaos. The GOP should be renamed the CCCP. Most of the Democratic leaders do not know how to resist Trump. There needs to be a moral rebirth in our nation. Many are morally blind to Trump and his actions. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American? What is right and wrong? Many are under the influence of conspiracy theories and do not realize that they are being played for money. — Rick Jones, Mount Gilead, Ohio You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

Democratic governors search for a balance between fighting and working with Trump
Democratic governors search for a balance between fighting and working with Trump

NBC News

time20 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Democratic governors search for a balance between fighting and working with Trump

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Linda McMahon and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have largely been skewered by Democrats for the way they have run President Donald Trump's Education and Health departments. But over the weekend at a bipartisan summit of governors in Colorado Springs, they received a distinctly warm welcome — including from the Democrats on hand. Instead of pressing McMahon on her plans to eliminate the Education Department, a move that will substantially affect state budgets, Democrats who attended the National Governors Association meeting in the mountain foothills of Colorado offered praise to McMahon during a Friday session over the Trump administration's decision to release billions in education funding it had withheld. And they peppered her with questions about students' mental health, early childhood education and artificial intelligence — areas where they might be able to find common ground. On Saturday, Kennedy, whose stances on vaccines have drawn fierce criticism, held court with a group of Democratic governors, assuring them that he did not want to see budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services. These conciliatory moments, which occurred throughout the NGA's summer meeting, underscored the bind Democrats have found themselves in during Trump's second term: weighing when to fight back against the administration, as the base is pushing for, and when to work with it to benefit their constituents. It's a balancing act that's particularly acute at the state level. While Democrats are out of power in Washington, the party's governors have much more authority. And governors in particular have prided themselves on searching for common ground, even in a heated political environment — a core purpose of the NGA. Still, a growing number of Democrats argue that calls for bipartisanship do not meet the current moment. Govs. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Laura Kelly of Kansas were among several Democrats who did not attend the summit. All told, seven Democratic governors and 11 Republican governors came for at least part of the weekend, the NGA said, while three governors attended virtually. Walz and Kelly, as The Atlantic first reported, declined to renew their NGA membership dues for the upcoming fiscal year, due to broader frustrations with how the group has approached the Trump administration. A source familiar with the governors' thinking said that Walz's and Kelly's feelings were 'a view held by more than just these two governors' and were a product of 'frustration' that the NGA 'had tied its own hands' by not taking a more active role in advocating for states and governors amid Trump's attacks. 'If we can't agree on standing up for states' rights, we're passively endorsing what the president is doing,' the source said. During his second term, Trump has defied or threatened many Democratic-led states. Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies, despite objections from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump also froze federal funds for a child nutrition program in Maine after he clashed with Gov. Janet Mills over an issue related to transgender athletes. (The Trump administration later halted the freeze.) Newsom and Mills also did not attend the summit. 'We can't just walk away' Several Democratic governors who attended the weekend meeting expressed sympathy for Walz's and Kelly's decision. They also highlighted the importance of finding common ground with their political adversaries, suggesting that it remained a better option to try to win influence with them instead of not showing up. 'The promise that I made to the people of Maryland when the Trump administration came on board was that I will work with anyone, but I will bow down to no one,' Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore said during a session with reporters at the summit in response to a question from NBC News. 'But there's a clear understanding and a clear desire to be able to work with anybody to make sure that the people of my state and the people for all of our states are getting the support that they need. And I think one of the benefits of this weekend was, you know, we got a chance to sit down with Secretary Kennedy, that we got a chance to actually sit down with Secretary McMahon,' added Moore, who was elected vice char of the NGA over the weekend. He noted that previously he had not had the chance to do so in the first seven months of Trump's second term. 'I actually think it was a real benefit,' Moore said. Moore is no stranger to fighting with the administration: Most recently, he has accused Trump of denying his state federal disaster assistance for flooding in Maryland in May. Moore said he'd spoken with Walz and Kelly, calling their frustrations 'justified.' But he added that the NGA 'is never going to be either the cheerleader nor the heckler of a federal administration.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green, a physician who has blamed Kennedy for measles outbreaks, said he had a 'valuable' private meeting with the health secretary that lasted an hour. 'I have some deep ideological differences with Secretary Kennedy,' Green said in an interview with NBC News. But he added that creating a collaborative environment with Kennedy and McMahon helped him explain to them why he felt 'things have to happen to protect vulnerable people.' Green said that he and Kennedy discussed how governors could most effectively access the $50 billion rural hospital fund that was included in the massive tax cut and spending bill Trump recently signed into law. 'We can't just walk away, in my opinion,' Green said. 'Even though I'll keep pushing back on any changes to the vaccine schedule … I will also be able to take some advantage of the relationships.' Green also said he had 'deep disagreements' with McMahon, but that he felt it remained important to maintain a dialogue. 'Do I have concerns about working with the secretary of education?' Green said. 'Of course I do, but I would have deeper concerns if there was no one that could speak up for what I feel is about half of the country.' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat whose term as NGA chair ended this weekend, said he invited Kennedy and McMahon in particular because governors had expressed to him that health care and education were two of the top issues they wanted to address during the event. 'I think these times call for the kind of bipartisan work of the NGA more than ever before. The American people want progress,' Polis said. 'And that only comes when the politicians stop fighting over their party labels and work together to achieve real outcomes that actually matter in people's lives.' Disagreements remain Democratic governors still made their disagreements with Republicans clear at the summit. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was among several Democratic governors to lambast the 'big, beautiful bill' and its cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. And a cadre of Democratic governors slammed Texas Republicans' plans to redraw its congressional maps ahead of schedule in an effort to help the GOP protect its narrow House majority in next year's midterm elections. In an emailed statement in response to questions from NBC News, NGA spokesperson Eric Wohlschlegel said that 'the record participation and support of NGA isn't because governors avoid tough topics; it's because NGA is one of the few places where they can cut through the noise and collectively focus on what works.' 'It's critical in a political climate where so many issues become zero-sum fights, NGA provides something increasingly rare: a forum for real, results-driven, bipartisan problem-solving. That's why governors keep showing up,' Wohlschlegel added. Green, Hawaii's governor, said that approach paid off — even though 'sometimes it gives me heartburn.'

November 2026 Is Everything
November 2026 Is Everything

New York Times

time20 minutes ago

  • New York Times

November 2026 Is Everything

I guess we're going to be talking about Zohran Mamdani for every hour of every day for the foreseeable future, and I can certainly see why. A 33-year-old political larva, he's nonetheless well positioned to become mayor of the most populous and consequential city in the most powerful country on Earth. He's a great story and he matters. Hugely. But he's no harbinger. No template. Mamdani's fate in November 2025 will hold few clues and limited lessons for Democrats in November 2026, because New York City is not the United States. And we can't afford to overlook that, because November 2026 is everything. We also can't forget that the furor surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case will grow old, and probably few among the MAGA faithful will abandon President Trump over it. We can't overinterpret national polls, which are just that: polls, meaning that they fluctuate, and national, meaning that they blur the regional and local peculiarities that have enormous bearing on the country's direction. We can't let any of the political anomalies, Beltway melodramas, sweeping generalities and other chum for cable television news distract from what I'm increasingly convinced is the whole ballgame for America's future: Democrats' wresting control of at least one chamber of Congress. The party faces brutal odds against flipping the four seats in the Senate necessary for a majority there, so I'm talking about the House. Anyone who appreciates the threat that an unbowed, unrestrained Trump poses must be relentlessly, obsessively focused on the rare congressional districts — maybe about 20 of them, maybe several more — that are truly up for grabs, and on the math and methods for Democratic victories in them. I'm not saying that because the Democratic Party is in such fine fettle. Hardly. I'm saying that because Republicans — devoid of conscience and terrified of Trump — have shown an almost complete willingness to let him do whatever he wants and drag the country wherever he pleases, which is down into a sewer of despotism, corruption, cruelty and fiscal insanity. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store